Father Acting as Legal Representative Cannot Challenge Section 148 Notice | HC

Case Details: Vijender Pal Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 688 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dinesh Mehta & Amit Mahajan, JJ.
• Pankaj Kumar Saxena, Keshav Dwivedi, Ms Divyanshee Singh & Ashish Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Shlok Chandra, Sr. Std. Counsel, Ms Naincy Jain, Ms Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SCs & Udit Dad, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by the ACIT vide notice issued under Section 148, and the order passed under Section 148(A) (d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice was issued against the assessee, who had passed away, and the Competent Authority prescribed under Section 151 did not grant approval.

High Court Held

The Delhi High Court held that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is the governing provision for continuation and initiation of assessment proceedings upon the death of an assessee, does not use the expression ‘legal heir’ at all; it employs the expression legal representative’.

The legislature’s conscious choice of the expression ‘legal representative’ rather than ‘legal heir’ is not without significance; it reflects the legislature’s intent to cast a wider net for tax proceedings, not limited to the hierarchies of succession law.

The expression ‘Legal Representative’ has been defined under Section 2(11) of the CPC as under: “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.

The definition is both inclusive and wide. It is not confined to persons who inherit the estate of the deceased. It embraces three distinct categories: first, a person who, in law, represents the estate of the deceased; second, any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased; and third, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party. A person need not be a legal heir, much less a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, to fall within this definition. The test is not one of inheritance; it is one of representation vis-a-vis the estate of the deceased.

In the instant case, the father of the deceased assessee, though not a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had by his conduct become the Legal Representative. By filing a reply in response to the show cause notice, expressly stating that he was doing so “in the capacity of his legal representative he has indubitably claimed himself to be a Legal Representative. Having submitted to the proceedings in the representative capacity and having represented to the Revenue that he was the Legal Representative, it would be impermissible for the petitioner to now contend that the notice served upon him was invalid for want of his being a Legal Heir.

Therefore, the notice was validly served upon the father of the deceased assessee, and the petition was allowed.